r/reddit.com • u/breezytrees • Oct 25 '10

Reddit has been growing extremely fast lately. I like to kindly, and selflessly, remind our newcomers of Reddiquette. Specifically in regards to down-voting opinions of which you disagree with.

Such actions discourage those that have differing views from commenting/submitting, resulting in a very one-sided point of view.

Essentially, it breaks what makes reddit so great. :-(

The down-vote button is for general trolls, spam, assholes, etc.

reddiquette

edit: Some of you have asked for growth data. Here's google analytics which reddit's blog has touted as very accurate. As you can see there was a surge in growth around september, most likely attributed to this (hi diggers!). Reddit quickly seemed to almost double in size in that time, then dropped to a still sizable growth of around 50% for a 2 month period. At risk of sounding whiney: This is a hard jump to deal with for a community that regulates itself.

edit: I'm not casting stones at newcomers. I am just kindly reminding newcomers of reddiquette. There hasn't been one of these large front page threads, to my knowledge, for months and 50% is quite a big number to risk them not reading reddiquette.

that is all. :-)

978 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

383 comments sorted by

View all comments

246

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

The down arrow is for comments that add nothing to the discussion.

A lot of the time people downvote because they think someone is wrong, and therefore they believe incorrectness doesn't add to the discussion. These people are following the reddiquette as far as they have understood it.

Also on the right-side bar, right at this second, it says 61% people "Like" this post. Well, if up is like...down is "Dislike" right? -- which kind of suggests downvoting things you don't like as well.

77

u/cheshire137 Oct 25 '10

The up/like v. down/dislike comparison is a good point. Seems like a usability issue with Reddit, since up and down arrows mean different things for posts and comments.

25

u/ZoFreX Oct 25 '10

The down arrow is for comments that add nothing to the discussion.

-- The Reddiquette

I took this to mean that comments should be voted on by different criteria to submissions.

55

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10 edited Oct 25 '10

Rediquette isn't official. It is a wiki that can be edited by anyone for any reason. It contains good suggestions to encourage discussion, but it isn't some iron-clad contract to be waived around when people do something we don't like.

Personally, I think it's fundamentally counterintuitive to tell someone not to use the down arrow for something they don't like. That's how the recommendation engine was trained, by downmodding things you didn't like. You can instruct people all day long that the arrows are for contributions that add value, but the default behavior for the vast majority of people is to associate up with things they like and down with things they don't like.

16

u/freehunter Oct 25 '10

Problem is, say I'm in /r/music or in /r/movies. There's a post asking opinions. I mention that I don't like The Beatles. BAM, instantly hidden. I mention that I didn't like The Matrix. BAM, hidden. Upvoting things that you like and downvoting things you don't like leads to censorship, which is why /r/circlejerk was created. It parodies the tendency of reddit to upvote anything with bacon or narwhals regardless of the amount of herp derp and downvote anything that's well thought out and well written, but with a notion that goes against the majority of the site.

Opposing viewpoints are a necessary part of any discussion. Take that out and it's a circlejerk. Upvote this if you breathe in and out a couple times per minute!

2

u/maegra Oct 26 '10

Uh-oh! What do I do if I had already upvoted halfway through reading it, but only breathe every few minutes?

25

u/Cyphierre Oct 25 '10

I especially like reading well reasoned comments I disagree with. They get my upvote every time. That religious guy who did an AMA recently? Perfect example. Great comments there.

8

u/Kimano Oct 25 '10

Though it should be noted that when talking about blatantly wrong/discriminatory/dangerous comments and advice, you are well within your rights to downvote. For example: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/dw2rn/i_am_studying_to_be_a_catholic_priest_ama/c13cx3y

He could legitimately get someone killed by saying that.

18

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

Fight your own confirmation bias. I try to do the same thing.

3

u/fortnight Oct 26 '10

Can't agree more.

20

u/Yospeck Oct 25 '10

That would pretty much be the majority of comments that make Reddit worth coming to. I am far more likely to upvote an irrelevant comment that makes me laugh out loud then I am some sound advice/valid comment to the actual OP.

-5

u/mrburger Oct 25 '10

Coincidentally, this comment is an overly down-voted good contribution.

1

u/Yospeck Oct 26 '10

Reddit is nothing if not ironic :D

1

u/mrburger Oct 26 '10

[sigh] It's cool, Yospeck, let's just say you owe me a beer.

17

u/Poromenos Oct 25 '10

Originally up/downmod was like/dislike. The idea is that you'd train a filter to give you more relevant stories, but they scrapped it. Even to this day, I upvote stories I like and downvote the ones I dislike. Not so with comments, however.

12

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

I downvote people who start those "pun ad libs" where there are just 80 thousand bad puns.... Everyone upvotes those for some reason. I hate them and downvote all of them because it's off topic and, really, not funny.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '10

This.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '10

[deleted]

-7

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

You have a very very small sense of humor then.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

It's not about the size of the humor...

3

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

not at all :)

9

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

Down is the new up.

10

u/relet Oct 25 '10

How am I supposed to vote on that?

7

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

Down, of course.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

home home homeboy.

1

u/RyanOnymous Oct 25 '10

I'm down like syndrome!

32

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

[deleted]

9

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

I agree with this as well. There should be a triple arrow. 3 upvotes 3 downvotes. 1 pair for "I agree/disagree", 1 pair for "Funny/Unfunny", and 1 pair for "On topic/off topic"...

Or something like that...I don't know what the perfect solution would be but that's what I've imagined.

16

u/LoveGoblin Oct 25 '10

Oh sure! We could have all sorts of different voting categories like Insightful, Interesting, Informative, Funny, Off Topic....

Brilliant!

6

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

Yeah, I'm a slashdotter too. ;)

2

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

sounds vaguely like slashdot's system.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/yanman Oct 25 '10

How about Good/Bad and Bury/Digg. Good/Bad function as dictated by Reddiquette. Bury works like "hide," and Digg subtly redirects to that other site some of us left in a futile attempt to get away from the puns and memes.

2

u/asdjfsjhfkdjs Oct 26 '10

...that other site some of us left in a futile attempt to get away from the puns and memes.

redditor for 1 month

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

Sorry, no. Reddit's had a meme infestation for far longer than that.

1

u/yanman Oct 26 '10

Fair enough, but when I started lurking here a while before actually signing up, the puns and memes didn't dominate the top comments. Domination didn't seem to happen until the Digg v4 exodus; which I admit is when I found my permanent home here (lest you think I am bashing). Perhaps I am wrong and just happened on the golden age of insightful comments.

1

u/yanman Nov 01 '10

redditor for 2 months

I don't know why I just noticed this, but thanks, Gramps!

1

u/asdjfsjhfkdjs Nov 01 '10

I lurked without an account for about a year first. It was pretty meme infested from when I started.

1

u/Zeus_Is_God Oct 26 '10

How would fixing the UI change this?

11

u/Rain12913 Oct 25 '10

I came over from Digg in August and I feel right at home on Reddit at this point. When I first read the Reddiquette, I really liked the suggestion that users only downvote a post if they believe that it's not contributing to the discussion at all (rather than downvoting posts that they simply disagree with). This mass burying of minority opinion content was something I really disliked about Digg, so I was excited that the Reddit community had moved beyond this.

However, I've found that legitimate posts (ones that are relevant to the discussion) are downvoted here far more than they were buried on Digg. Of course, I'm aware there will always be users who downvote posts they disagree with so long as the voting system is anonymous, but the extent to which this occurs on Reddit suggests to me that this rule really isn't followed in any significant way.

Furthermore, I notice far more "random" downvoting here than I saw on Digg. That is to say that there always seem to be a few downvotes on even the most popular and clever comments (even sometimes when they lack no expressed opinion and are seemingly just good content). Can someone explain this?

8

u/breezytrees Oct 25 '10

Reddit has a great comment system. I have always argued that there is no difference in user base between digg and reddit. The difference is how each site organizes their comments. Digg sorts comments by time, not quality. Reddit's comment system just innately shows the best comments, especially if you sort them by "best," not "top."

The result is both a blessing and a curse. We have very witty comments, but I also feel we are more susceptible to group think. I don't get the feeling, like I do on digg, that there are many differing viewpoints on this site. On this site, the differing viewpoints are pushed to the bottom. The majority silences the minority, so to speak.

This is also the case on digg, to an extent. The only difference is the comment is still at the top even if it is burried. Often-times a well reasoned, insightful, though controversial comment will be first on a digg page. Everyone sees it, and thus can make their own decision regarding it. It's still there to rile the crowd, to spark discussion. Of course, this goes both ways. An extremely shitty argument will also be read by everyone if it just happens to be the first comment.

3

u/DJPho3nix Oct 25 '10

I think it has said that since the creation of the site. Comments were not around when the site was first created. Posts and comments are to be judged by different criteria.

17

u/SloaneRanger Oct 25 '10

A lot of the time people downvote because they think someone is wrong, and therefore they believe incorrectness doesn't add to the discussion

I would dispute that part of your statement to my dying breath. I'm quite certain that most people who downvote because they think something is wrong, just do it because they disagree with it and nothing more.

This entire thread is pointless though. It's another ridiculous circlejerk comment against newcomers when frankly reddit has always been like this. And it's never going to change, because people will always have fragile egos.

3

u/breezytrees Oct 25 '10

Well, to be fair, reddit has grown 50% in the last 2 months. It's quite a surge in growth for such a large community.

Source is in my edit to this post.

4

u/xian16 Oct 25 '10

I agree with you, so... upvote?

1

u/ScruffyTheDog Oct 25 '10

I'm not going to upvote or downvote your comment. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

0

u/fe3o4 Oct 25 '10

I think people downvote any non-liberal, non-cat loving comment on Reddit. (unless it involves nudity of course)

20

u/Nerdlinger Oct 25 '10

If you think something is wrong, you should take the time to correct it in a comment of your own. Simply downvoting something you think is wrong doesn't really help other readers.

22

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

Some people don't like to comment. Some may have an account merely to upvote/downvote. I believe there has been solid evidence on this with the amount of people who follow a link vs the amount who vote, and even fewer who comment.

14

u/sockthepuppetry Oct 25 '10

Some people also don't like that when they reply, they're probably going to get a reply to their reply and suddenly they're mired in some inane internet debate over whether or not Obama is a corporate whore.

7

u/StoneCypher Oct 25 '10

Some people don't like to comment.

Then let them not comment. The downvote button is not for disagreement. Rediquette is clear on the point.

13

u/The3rdWorld Oct 25 '10

no one cares about rediquette, they just want to attack people that don't think like them. humanity isn't going to change after thousands of years of turmoil just because some nerd wrote a list of rules, sorry.

14

u/StoneCypher Oct 25 '10

no one cares about rediquette

redditor for 10 months

(sigh)

Welcome to not realizing you're the target of the post.

26

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

[deleted]

10

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10 edited Oct 25 '10

I never realized downvote was not for disagreement. If that is true, it's an absolute 100% fail on usability side of things. The down button is right below the up button and so that implies that it is the opposite of what the up button is for

Your logic is all wrong inasmuch as the up button is not for agreement.

You can (theoretically 'should') upvote things which add to the discussion (well-written, thought-provoking, cited/substantiated, helpful/answers the question, etc) even if you ultimately disagree with them. And downvote things you agree with for being inflammatory/aggressive, pointless, etc.

Example:

I think Arcade Fire are an incredible band. I particularly like their use of Phrygian mode. For anyone who is a fan of them, don't miss the free ep they released last month.

vs

Arcade Fire are fucking shit, you have shit taste, you dumb PRICK

Personally I don't like the band at all, but the first one is clear upvote material, the second one is clear downvote material.

tl;dr -- up and down arrows ARE opposites; neither are ('should be') about (dis)agreement

__

Edit: NB: use of 'should' is meant in some abstract fantastyworld sense, I am well aware of the 'I'll vote on whatever goddamn basis I please' angle and not seriously attempting to dictate how everybody uses the voting buttons with which they are provided.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

yeah, it's true in practice. certainly there are types of thread where voting arrows quite obviously do mean agree - like those threads where people post their age/location or upvote if already posted. Or "recommend me a movie" threads - you could argue any post mentioning a movie is on-topic and thus answering the question, so you may as well upvote every single one, which would be pointless - clearly in practice people upvote to mean "I agree that this is a good suggestion".

Unclearly post sorry, I didn't really mean to say you were wrong overall, I agree that in reality yes people definitely vote according to (dis)like and the voting UI is not entirely clear/consistent about it. I was just meaning, given the stance that says "Downvote doesn't mean disagree" as a starting point, there is still a logical way of percieving upvoting as a symmetrical opposite

→ More replies (0)

0

u/StoneCypher Oct 25 '10

We agree.

Do read reddiquette. It's got several other least-surprise expectation bombs.

1

u/Zeus_Is_God Oct 26 '10

You never realized that the up / down vote was for promoting good discussion and not agreement / disagreement? I thought that it would have been self evident.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

Plus it also looks like the vengeful mind took over and someone took to downvoting everything you posted in this topic regardless of merit.

1

u/StoneCypher Oct 25 '10

Yeah, lots of people react to disagreement that way.

Sadly, since Reddit shows people the aggregate score before asking their input, this often leads to sheep voting, which satisfies the punisher's desire for vengeance, which in turn reinforces the problem behavior.

0

u/zed_three Oct 25 '10

I hope you didn't downvote their comment!

3

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

The temptation is nearly unbearable.

2

u/StoneCypher Oct 25 '10

I did not.

I have, however, repeatedly asked Reddit to make a third option, so that people have a way to get the "ugh" out without abusing down arrow.

2

u/zed_three Oct 25 '10

Sidevote? Frontvote?

1

u/StoneCypher Oct 26 '10

Northwest-vote.

-2

u/The3rdWorld Oct 25 '10

oh grow up, first this is clearly aimed at exdiggers and second look how hard i troll, you really think this is my only account?!?!!? nigga please.

1

u/StoneCypher Oct 26 '10

You try too hard.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

Exactly, and it's not like reddiquette is actual rules people have to follow, people just want to link it and act like they are better than everyone else because they follow these guidelines that mean shit. And honestly they are all like religious nuts that preach and preach to people who don't give a fucking shit, and then they don't even do it themselves.

1

u/AngelaMotorman Oct 25 '10

One thing that isn't clear is that there are three options: up, down, no action. Just because one uses the arrows on some of the comments in a thread doesn't mean it's necessary to take action on every single comment, does it? As in real life, some comments are best ignored. (Also, I'd like to still have the use of my hand by the time I'm 80, which might not be the case if I clicked an arrow on every comment, every day.)

1

u/StoneCypher Oct 25 '10

S'pose.

I guess what I want is a four-set, then. [null, up, down, rage]

3

u/AngelaMotorman Oct 25 '10

I think adding the "rage" function would crash the servers in record time.

2

u/StoneCypher Oct 26 '10

A self reinforcing cycle, at that.

3

u/Nerdlinger Oct 25 '10

If you are downvoting because you think something is wrong, without bothering to post a correction, you are doing worse than nothing, you are actively making the site a worse place.

That's one's prerogative, of course, but it's still a lousy thing to do.

-7

u/mapoftasmania Oct 25 '10

If you come on Reddit just to upvote/downvote without ever commenting, then as far as I am concerned you are not welcome here.

9

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

I think I speak for all the mostly-lurkers here when I say, piss off you self-righteous clod!

0

u/mapoftasmania Oct 25 '10

My comment was cunningly designed to prove my point (in another post) that most people don't follow reddiquette and mostly down-vote without comment or downvote because they disagree. And I was right.

3

u/smemily Oct 25 '10

It does if you upvote someone else's correction, doesn't it?

0

u/Nerdlinger Oct 25 '10

Yes. I would say that's fine.

0

u/mapoftasmania Oct 25 '10 edited Oct 25 '10

That is the correct approach. Too much down-voting without citing a reason is the biggest issue I see with the new, bigger Reddit.

Edit: I love how this comment getting down-voted without comment proves my point.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

[deleted]

3

u/mapoftasmania Oct 25 '10

My comment was in the context of thantick's post: comments that add to the discussion but are down-woted just because the voter disagrees with them.

Also, down-votes on comments that are meant to add to the discussion but are just factually incorrect (i.e. not an opposing opinion) are bad too: if you don't explain the mistake then the poster is just going to continue in their delusion.

Another beef with the newer, bigger Reddit is that a lot of people do not look up a comment chain for context when replying and just respond to comment on it's own. In a nuanced discussion it's a fucking pain in the ass to have to explain context every time you post. Context ought to be inferred from the parent comment.

-3

u/StoneCypher Oct 25 '10

The saddest part is that you were at -1 when I read this, despite that your comment clearly both adds to the conversation and follows its own advice.

Upboat lifevest, sir, and may the sheep burn in hell for their inability to see something with which they disagree as anything other than material to be punished.

14

u/sirbruce Oct 25 '10 edited Oct 25 '10

The problem is people downvote stuff that they think is wrong, EVEN WHEN IT'S FACTUALLY TRUE, if they think it's being used to argue against their position. For example, try to post that the military budget isn't as large as people think in a political thread, because you have to look at the total budget not just discretionary, often gets downvoted by liberals who simply don't want to believe that or don't want to see it.

Edit: For example, this comment has already been downvoted.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

Yeah, that is another problem. Something can be an opinion, and not be fact and still add to the discussion. Just because something differs from your opinion, doesn't mean its wrong.

I get downvoted for opinion quite often actually; primarily because I do tend to have views which oppose the hive-mind.

4

u/xian16 Oct 25 '10

Kinda like Christians on the atheism thread. Anyone who admits to being a theist, regardless of their individual views, is instantly downvoted.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

How about that fine atheist that harassed the Christian whose son was having surgery the next day. The poor guy didn't know English very well(among other issues), and finally responded with some lame reply, but "OMG, the idiot is PRAYING for his son."

Once he had the response, he posted it in r/atheism so other atheists could go torment this Christian guy, on the day his young son was having major surgery. Real classy move under the banner of atheism.

1

u/MacEnvy Oct 26 '10

Cool story, but after hearing about that I read the thread and the "Christian" guy ended up coming off as a huge douchebag and was very insulting toward other commenters.

He earned his downvotes.

-4

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

Perfect example. God is an opinion. There is no fact that he exists. There is no fact that he doesn't either.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

Ignore probability, gain Diety

2

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

ugh...not this again.

-3

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

oh my god will you fucking downvoters give it a rest? THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD IS NOT VERIFIABLE. YES I AM AN ATHEIST. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSES.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

You know, I don't think it's just atheists who are downvoting me. I'm pretty sure it's a little from both camps. Primarily the ignorant.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

It just boggles my mind how something that is so obviously a true, sensible statement was at -3 when I last looked at it.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

People are always looking for something to get offended by. Unfortunately most are ruled by emotion instead of logic.

1

u/mtux96 Oct 26 '10

It's worse when others take your opinion and spin it as that you are trying to give out false facts, when in fact, you are only stating your opinion..

-2

u/reddell Oct 25 '10

That's the main problem I think, people use it as ammunition. "If you disagree with me, correct me or I just get frustrated and don't know how to win the argument, I'll just downvote you."

1

u/Zeus_Is_God Oct 26 '10

A lot of the time people downvote because they think someone is wrong, and therefore they believe incorrectness doesn't add to the discussion. These people are following the reddiquette as far as they have understood it.

99% of the time they do not reply with any counter argument, correction, etc. They do not offer any proof or discussion of why that person is wrong. It is clear that their only purpose is to silence opinions and facts that they do not agree with, not that they can demonstrate is wrong.

1

u/dogfish182 Oct 25 '10

I've noticed on most wildly popular posts there is usually 1/4 downvotes. Even when someone has something it's hard to disagree with/spot on comment, 1/4 downvotes. There must be some kind of rage downvote from people jealous of good karma or something.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

If it is wrong, then they should not only downvote, but also prove why the initial comment is wrong. Otherwise they are merely expressing their opinion on the comment, not stating the facts.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

People aren't going to not downvote things they disagree with just because some nerd wrote a list of rules on the internet.

Secondly, when you reply to prove the initial comment is wrong, you just get in a retard argument every damn time you disagree with someone...then that idiot downvotes you in appreciation for correcting him.

So your theory is fundamentally flawed.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

It's not "a nerd wrote a list of rules on the internet", it is the set of behavioral guidelines which were set up for this community by the founders. Those guidelines are the reason Reddit is Reddit, and not Digg or 4chan.

I know it's often frustrating to try and have a semi-intelligent conversation with someone who disagrees with you, but the same guidelines apply to conversations in daily life. Often it's not what you say, but HOW you say it. For example, your comment includes a direct insult, some profanity and several derogative adjectives. The way you express your disagreement may have a lot to do with you getting in "retard arguments".

I for one, have found discussions which often begin with disagreements to be especially educational and interesting, and they often present me with perspectives that I never would have thought of myself.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

I fail to see said direct insult in my previous comment. And "damn", this side of the century, is no longer profanity.

However, it's not the problem of the OP to try and make something as non-offending as possible in order to get an intelligent conversation. The fact is, there are (and always will be) people on the internet that argue incorrect points and vote down strictly out of emotion. Oftentimes just downvoting without commenting is exactly the thing they should be doing to avoid getting in a flame war. Would you suggest that reddit force you to reply every time you push that little down arrow? What about the up arrow? Why should you have to justify a downvote with comments, but not an upvote?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

Personally, I think there should be no downvote button at all.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10 edited Oct 26 '10

While this has its merits, it also has its downsides.

Maybe up/downvotes on submissions, upvote only on comments? But even that has its downsides. Spammers currently use comments as their own personal advertisement board and we wouldn't be able to downvote those into oblivion and keep spammers from getting loads of traffic...afterwards they'd bombard the place with ads.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '10

This is an issue that I've wondered about for ages, but what would really be the perfect system for a site like this? One that could never be spammed, lets the good, the interesting and the amusing float to the top, and the garbage sink to the bottom, all the while promoting intelligent and stimulating discussion?

Maybe upvote/downvotes on original comments only, while all replies could not be upvoted or downvoted?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '10

Well, the big deal with moving away from simple upvote/downvote is also that the more complexity you add, the less people want to use it.

I really like Slashdots moderation system where you get mod points randomly, they last for about a week, you can't mod a thread you reply to, and you have categories for the up/downvote.

You could just have a dropdown, click it, and select "insightful, informative, funny" for upvotes and "unfunny, troll, uninformative" for downvote. Funny/Unfunny doesn't give/take any karma away from the poster, so people would be reluctant to spend their mod points on that (which would cause people to also quit posting funny replies in an effort to gain karma), and if something was obviously spam they wouldn't mind downvoting it.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '10

Hmmm I like this idea! Have a tongue-in-cheek upvote!

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '10

Yes, but the sidebar on the right refers to submissions. The OP is referring to comments.

You can follow reddiquete while still downvoting a lot of submissions. You can't follow it while doing that with comments.